Comments on: The Hagelian Dialectichttp://sadredearth.com/the-hagelian-dialectic/
how we lived on itWed, 29 Jul 2015 05:59:43 +0000hourly1By: A. Jay Adlerhttp://sadredearth.com/the-hagelian-dialectic/comment-page-1/#comment-42062
Wed, 09 Jan 2013 08:35:03 +0000http://sadredearth.com/?p=13799#comment-42062I am myself least troubled by the “Jewish lobby” remark. As I say in the post, I don’t find the most useful approach to the matter to be in regards to Hagel’s thoughts or feelings about Jews. If we didn’t have the idiosyncrasy of Israel and Jewish, instead of Ireland and Irish, the issue wouldn’t even arise.

On the other hand we do have Hagel’s views on Israel and support thereof: he is supportive, but in a manner that, for me, does not indicate an adequate understanding of and distinction among the various parties, reflecting an inadequate appreciation for the greater contentions at play internationally. He has dismissed the possibility of effective use of force against Iran in such a way as to undermine all of Obama’s emphatic assertions to the contrary. There is no reason at all for the Iranian leaders not to read it that way.

Far be it from me to be unrealistic, even to the point of sometimes recognizing the need for strategic retreat. (What else will withdrawal from Afghanistan be?) But if the United States sees its best interests as contrary to supporting democracies against autocracy and worse, many Americans would have reason to rethink their feelings about their country.

]]>By: SnoopyTheGoonhttp://sadredearth.com/the-hagelian-dialectic/comment-page-1/#comment-42044
Tue, 08 Jan 2013 09:43:41 +0000http://sadredearth.com/?p=13799#comment-42044Dunno what to say about that brouhaha. On the face of it, Hagel is a self-made man, a war hero – which is especially important. A man who knows what war is about will do his best to avoid it, which is not a bad thing for a defense minister. He was comparatively soft on Iran – but then so was Obama at the beginning, what with the endless attempts to “engage” that lead nowhere. His view on Cuban embargo – I fully agree with them. If the embargo was dropped, say, 20 years ago, we would have by now forgotten about Castroites and their regime, I believe.

His views on Israel and support of thereof are in no way publicly articulated at this stage, and shouldn’t we wait for him to make them clear before jumping into the fray?

There is only one fly in the ointment – his “Jewish lobby” remark, which heats up the discussion and indeed is troublesome. It goes deeper than politics. Should be a warning sign indeed.

Now to the “To support Israel is to support democracy and liberal values. ” Hm… I am not arguing with the spirit of this saying, of course. It is just that for a US president or any other high level official to support Israel (or any other foreign entity) in a (hypothetical) case where such support may go against the best interests of United States will be a clear case of dereliction of duty. Democracy, liberal values, personal dislikes and/or sympathies should always take the second place in realpolitik, I think.